Yes, we continue the topic Boomerang. Precisely because, as usual with us, 80% of the commenting mass did not understand anything, especially without complicating themselves with reading. However, the usual thing.
To continue the topic I was inspired by the next Personal Opinion of Mr. Aniral of the divan troops. In which he spoke so impressively that "all this is garbage, everyone is equal before the RPG." But because the "Boomerang" that the BTR-82 - no difference.
My God, and this is in the 21st century, and on “Military Review” such nonsense is being posted ...
Okay, let's go wheels in order.
RPG-7. Weapon Arabs and blacks. Well, militias in case of the last war. Volkssturm of the 21st century will look like this: AKM from warehouses and RPG-7 from there. What if you're lucky?
I immediately understand that whoever speaks here specifically in terms of the fact that RPG is a scrap against which there is no admission, this RPG is only seen on video. And to shoot ... Well, yes, why is it sofa?
My colleague Krivov and I were given a try two years ago. In the exercises where we shot. Misha - layout tank, 300 meters to her. The briefing was. All showed. Well, we fired, in accordance with the information received.
Of course not. But they had the notion that after such a shot they won’t let you get another one, if only the mentally retarded are on the other side.
So, gentlemen, couches, with all my heart I wish you to check on yourself how it is, an RPG against a tank. Not in computer shooters, but in kind. Blacks and Arabs sometimes succeed, but even they prefer the Tou.
I want to live ...
Do not write nonsense, I beg you very much. RPG-7 (as well as AKM) today is the weapon of an African rogue, a rebel in the jungle and a pirate on a longboat. A smart modern army fighter with this thing may perhaps show something, but not for long.
Because in the tank or infantry fighting vehicle they are by no means fools, and they probably know how to use optics, cameras, thermal imagers and, most importantly, machine guns! And for their part, they will do everything so that you get the idea that the idea of firing an RPG from a tank is not the best.
And God forbid that the understanding was 7,62 mm, and not 12,7.
In general, a disposable weapon is a disposable organism.
We’ll talk about serious things now. About whether we even need these "Boomerangs", for which I so advocated. True, the shadow of the Su-57 completely closed them, but nothing, let's try a second attempt. What if it works out?
So, in principle, we have a development and several assembled copies (ceremonial), sort of like for testing, wheeled armored personnel carrier K-16 and tracked infantry fighting vehicle K-17. Well, in the future, a whole bunch of other cars, both the combat plan, and special, repair and others.
What confuses many today is the size. On the dimensions of K-16, and arguments are built. But since the marshals and generals are couch, then all this does not look very logical.
Yes, K-16 is very good in terms of growth, that is, height. Higher tanks are obtained. Many drew attention to this. And besides, heavy, 32 tons.
Cons: High - which means it’s easier to get into. So we need a low and fast armored personnel carrier! But he already is! This is BTR-82A! Hooray!
And stuff like that.
Immediately, I note that not everything that is low is good.
Where is the place of armored personnel carriers in modern combat? And over there. Behind everyone. An armored personnel carrier is also a transporter in order to bring infantry to the landing line and land it. Tanks went, infantry went, and only armored personnel carriers crawled behind them, shooting from a safe distance for every little thing. Supporting the infantry, so to speak.
About the same thing will happen in the city, only infantry will go first, then tanks, and only then armored boxes.
And no one will run on them with grenade launchers in the first place, because either the infantry will shoot everything (and they will try to mentally), or the tankers will arrange a local apocalypse in a single village.
BTR at the forefront of the offensive - nonsense. And defense is also nonsense. Its place is where size is far from important.
Well, if someone confuses the APC and BMPT - this is his own business.
Now go through the competitor.
BTR-82A. In fact, as I said in the first article, this is the same BTR-60. The differences are minimal, and the main essence of the car has not changed over the past 70 years. A little added armor, horsepower to the engine, weapons increased. But essentially it’s the same BTR-60. With its main drawback, which is impossible to eliminate without changing the essence of the machine.
We look at the photo.
Afghanistan. Armored infantry.
Syria. Armored infantry.
Donbass, Ossetia ... The list goes on, but the essence will be the same: the infantry rides on top of the armor.
Stupidity? Panache? No. The desire to live. Sniper ... Well, yes. But not all. Machine gun? Well yes. But not a very accurate weapon. Mina under the bottom? Well yes…
With all three troubles, the situation is the same - you fly head first and think: if you shoot, then where?
But if the mine explodes under the bottom, and the landing is not on the armor, but inside, then the practice of Afghanistan has proved that the APC turns into a good and comfortable mass grave on wheels.
And since over the past 70 years the BTR-60 (70, 80, 82 with various letters) has not changed for the better, then here is the result. Infantry rides on top of the armor. Substituting bullets, fragments, but stubbornly not wanting to die in an iron can, completely not holding a mine explosion.
And no matter how you upgrade the armored personnel carriers of this family, placing a diesel engine, adding 30-mm guns, thickening armor, introducing anti-shatter loot and modern means of aiming and observation, soldiers on the march will invariably crawl out on the armor.
Personal opinion: no matter how you tune the VAZ, it was like an old TAZ, and it will go to the landfill with a basin. As the BTR-60 became obsolete by the 80s of the last century, so no matter how much you upgrade, it will remain an old can. A deadly old can. For the crew and the landing.
But there is one more minus. Big.
Now, everyone who served in the Union, come on, refresh your memory and do not let lie. What was the fighter dragging on himself? We don’t even remember about the "harness", this thing was exclusively necessary for carrying the raincoat-tent. And so the outfit is more than modest: a shovel, a flask, a gas mask, a cartridge pouch for shops, a pouch for grenades.
It was possible, with all this goodness, to get into the armored personnel carrier. And get out if something happens.
Today in the "Warrior" is more than doubtful. And if in the heavy equipment of a sapper ... It’s simply unrealistic.
In addition, this side hole ... It’s so convenient to jump out of it on the side of the armored (conditionally) hull, right under the bullets ...
Well, yes, but the APC is floating. A very useful option, especially in Syria and the Donbass. That's where buoyancy just helped out.
And a few words about armor.
Let us all agree that the BTR-82 does not have armor per se. The machine body can easily be flashed with an ordinary armor-piercing rifle bullet. From an average distance.
But the main enemy of the APC is not a sniper, although it can also drink blood. And not an RPG consumable. The main enemy of the BTR-82 is a colleague with either a heavy machine gun or an automatic cannon. Or - the Arabic version - a pickup truck, in the body of which both a gun and a machine gun are easily stuffed. Fast, inexpensive, efficient.
Pickup seems even worse to me. The review is better, speed and maneuverability will take its toll. And oligophrenic with a heavy machine gun will be a big problem. It is clear that the same disposable thing as a fellow with RPG, but it can do even more efficient things than a grenade launcher.
You must admit that it is much easier to get on an APC from a machine gun or a gun than from an RPG. And from a greater distance. And on a moving target.
So, sitting in an armored personnel carrier, you really should prefer three or four suicide bombers with RPGs than one psycho with a DShK on a pickup truck.
And so I turn to the Boomerang. So calmly go around. You didn’t get the understanding that in the event of a normal war with the saturation of the theater of war with modern means of battle, these 20-30 centimeters in height are nothing?
I have such an understanding.
And at the same time there is an understanding that not a low silhouette will save from missiles and grenades, but protection. Optoelectronic detection and suppression systems, dynamic protection, active protection systems. By the way, our potential KAZ is working out in full, and soon the army will install army jeeps and fuel trucks.
What can Boomerang offer in this regard?
A lot actually.
For example, a V-shaped bottom, the initial mine protection. Next is a suspended floor and energy-absorbing chairs. All this greatly increases the chances of survival among the paratroopers. And given how popular mines, guided land mines and other VCA are becoming popular all over the world, what kind of losses regular armies suffer from homemade products, survivability from undermining such a charge is our everything.
Armor. K-16 is capable of carrying armor that can withstand not only a bullet from a machine gun or rifle, but also a larger caliber. And with additional complexes you can talk about missiles and grenades.
Finally, the frankly miserable exit from the side or top of the hull remains in the past. And you can land as a BMP, from the stern, at least minimally hiding behind the car body.
And yes, the K-16 can provide a more spacious landing compartment. That in modern conditions is useful even in principle, because there is still a difference between conscripts of the sample of the 70-80s of the last century and today's contractors. In terms of weight and size characteristics.
In general, this is not only with us. This is true all over the world. Everywhere the army people became ... larger. Accordingly, the size of armored vehicles is growing. Look at the same “Stryker”, “Boxer”, “Frechchia” - well, all of them are not BTR-82 obviously. We can say that along with people, war machines also grew up, which need to transport not only people, but also ammunition and ammunition. There are not many rounds and grenades.
Move on. Boomerang is a very promising platform on which you can create many useful machines. From a wheeled tank (which for some reason we are skeptical of) to the KShM, sanitary and other important things. This is especially true for sanitary facilities. MT-LB for a long time does not correspond to modern combat realities.
And just a couple of words about the ability to swim. Yes, the BTR-60 was a "chip". It was presented as something excellent, "unparalleled," as it is now fashionable to say.
How important this option is today is very difficult to say. Somehow, the crossing of the Rhine, the Oder, the English Channel has completely receded into the background, most likely, there’s no need to fight there. Although, of course, some of our audience, which “we can repeat,” would very much advocate for this.
In general, the Boomerang can swim. But it’s better not to engage in this anachronism, but to develop more engineering troops that are more useful in this regard, which can throw not only heavy equipment across the water barrier, but also fuel and lubricants, ammunition and other useful things needed on the battlefield.
Weight ... Well, yes, 32 tons - this is not 15 for the BTR-82, but there are so many nuances here ... And the main thing is the engine. From what the BTR-82 carries, the KAMAZ "eight" of 300 hp the maximum that can still be obtained is 20-30 forces. Hence the complete “stop” for the further development of the armored personnel carrier. Or you need to come up with a new engine that fit into the rather poor volumes of the BTR-82.
The Boomerang has a YaMZ-780 multi-fuel diesel engine with a capacity of 750 liters. pp., which is very significant, and the ratio of forces per ton of mass is even steeper than that of the BTR-82. 24 versus 20. And the Yaroslavl engine can still be twisted in terms of modifications. So the hefty K-16 car is no slower than an APC.
Armament ... In the basic configuration, almost parity, if we compare exactly the BTR-82AM and K-16. But if you look in perspective, then I personally really like the variation on the theme of the 57-mm “Baikal”. Such a gun can not only carry pickups and classmates to the state of scrap metal, but even offend the tank on board.
Too much? C'mon, I don’t understand at all such a term as “excessive armor penetration”, I immediately recall history with the 57-mm anti-tank gun Grabin, which was first discontinued for this reason, and then urgently returned when the Tigers appeared.
All over the world this tendency to increase the caliber of support has long been going. And if earlier it was 20-25 mm, now it’s 30, and even 40 millimeters. So 57 mm is quite normal, and a wheeled tank with a 125 mm cannon also looks good.
Here you can recall that wheeled vehicles have a higher speed, and it is not necessary to carry on trawls, saving a resource. And the fact that the "minibus to the battlefield" as a class of application of technology is becoming obsolete. And it is replaced by just such a heavy vehicle, capable of not only delivering infantry to the battlefield, but also actually supporting it with fire and armor.
Yes, not like a tank can do it, but not like an armored personnel carrier with its 14,5 mm under-machine gun.
Most modern, unsurprising military experts predict the war of the future as a multi-media mobile confrontation. That is, the war is not in hypothetical fields or near the heights, but rather around and around cities, which will play the role of strongholds.
It is enough to look at the latest civil wars in Syria and Ukraine. That is exactly what happened there. There were virtually no front lines, but mines, ATGMs, ambushes and raids became common practice. Everyday.
Accordingly, the more versatile and multi-functional a combat vehicle will be, the greater the chances of a motorized rifle unit to survive and win. Modularity is everything for tomorrow’s war.
And here “Boomerang” looks very beautiful in perspective of installing KAZ, dynamic protection, additional reservation schemes and other things.
In general, around the world, ATGMs have become quite commonplace. It’s only for us that some of the most mossy part of readers are praying all on RPG-7, and even these representatives appeared at representatives of various military groups in the Middle East.
Moreover, the war on the warheads gave rise to the phenomenon of ATGM mercenaries. Experienced fighters, on the account of which there are many destroyed tanks of various military formations. And the same “Tou”, although archaism, but is better than RPG-7. And I’m silent about Javelin.
Although ours are not inferior, they are in many ways superior to foreign models. But the protection in the form of lattice screens on the same BTR-82AM looks like bed nets on tanks in Berlin in 1945.
In general, heavy armored personnel carriers are actively designing and building in the world. USA, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Singapore, Serbia ...
And who does not design - he simply buys.
And we have all the “shifts to the right” and corruption scandals. And we are building huge “military” churches. Instead of Boomerangs. And the panel with the first persons orders the Ministry of Defense. Instead of shells.
Strange decisions, to be honest. And Russian soldiers in Syria still ride "on the armor", and not inside it, because the fear of being blown up by a mine is more than getting a bullet from a sniper. A sniper may miss, but a good land mine ...
And how many do not tune the BTR-60, there will not be a good result. Just because the concept of the machine itself is 70 years old. And this, accordingly, is not the level of today, but of the last century, alas.
But we have a crisis. We are saving. So that there was something to steal, what to build various dubious structures and "patriotic" parks in the country, come up with another type of form, and so on. Well, these are strange things like underwater atomic drones and other "unparalleled" incomprehensible, but not cheap gizmos.
And it’s time to think about the strategy and tactics of tomorrow and to develop new technology for it. And not like ours: first, something is being developed, then an understanding of how this technique can be applied begins, then conversations about the “huge export potential” begin, and then that’s it. A curtain.
We hardly need such an approach in general, do we?